Hon’ble Vinod Prasad, J.—A group of close associates of half a dozen plus one revisionists namely, Shiv Prakash Tiwari,three sibling brothers Murli Upadhyay, Pawan Upadhyay, Ravi Upadhyay,teamed with Pintoo Singh, Pankaj Pathak,his father Paras Pathak and Kallu Mishra, have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, mooting a legal question for determination as to whether they can be improperly charged and be prosecuted for an offence, which they have never committed on the pretext that at the subsequent stage of trial their charge can be suitably amended? Mooting said question they have questioned the validity and sustainability of impugned order dated 17.2.2011 passed by Special Judge (SC/STAct), Varanasi in S.T. No. 360 of 2010, State v. Murli Upadhyay and others. Revisionists grievance is that Cr.P.C. as well as Constitution, which is fountain head of all laws in India, both mandates that accused can be charged and be prosecuted only for the crime/ offence committed by them disclosed either in the police case diary filed alongwith the charge-sheet or in the statements of witnesses recorded during inquiry conducted by the Magistrate under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.